Author
Topic: Mere Christianity (Read 3028 times)

One of the hardest books I have read. Really required my full attention to process and understand the concepts put forth in the first section. I thought it got easier in the next two. Perhaps because I was more familiar with those subjects.

Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy

the books are a compilation of radio talks he gave in england in the 40's. he was a pretty brilliant guy. lots of people don't know about the other stuff he wrote or his background.

to bad no one listened back them. england when on it's path to removing god and embracing socialism....the same path the most of europe, and eventually the us followed.

you'll probably want to go through it more than once. i think you can get it as audio book also.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Seriously though, I have the book and do intend to read it again. I have read some of his other works(Good stuff). I just might try it in audiobook format.

Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy

Lewis was a student of logic and that is the basis of the book... logic. Logic can be a bit to follow.

So you have read this book too?And here I had assumed logic should be easy and naturally understood...

Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I think I've read everything Lewis wrote. Certainly everything I can find that he wrote.

>And here I had assumed logic should be easy and naturally understood...

The Greeks mapped out the process and the common errors. The primary error in logic is "post hoc ergo proptor hoc" which means "after this, because of this". Every animal including humans falls for it. Something is happens and then something else happens and we assume the first caused the second. The reason we fall for it is because it is true often enough. The reason we SHOULDN'T fall for it is because its' NOT true often enough...

I would have to say the instinctive reaction of people to a problem is to see a first order relationship of cause and effect. This is seldom true and more often than not leads to erroneous conclusions. i.e. Someone shoots someone with a gun and the assumption is that it is the fault of the inanimate gun rather than the sentient human holding it...

Am I correct then in saying you believe logic isn't a good argument for the existence of a higher power(God)? Based on your previous statements.

Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy

>Am I correct then in saying you believe logic isn't a good argument for the existence of a higher power(God)? Based on your previous statements.

Two of the most logical people I know of, Blaise Pascal and C.S. Lewis both made a logical argument for the existence of a higher power (as have many others). I think it's quite illogical to assume something as complex as life, the universe and everything is just some random occurrence. But I don't intend to get into that argument as attempting to convince someone who doesn't wish to be convinced is a waste of my time.

Lewis does a very good job and if someone is actually interested in a logical argument, Mere Christianity is a good start.

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

There are times in Christianity when it is impossible to convince others based on "academic" arguments. At the core of Christianity man must always boil things down to one simple thing .... our sin and whether we acknowledge it and accept Christs sacrifice for it and make Him Lord. Then a person who is blind will see and he has access to Godly wisdom. Faith like a child...not faith like a scholar.

But I don't intend to get into that argument as attempting to convince someone who doesn't wish to be convinced is a waste of my time.

Lewis does a very good job and if someone is actually interested in a logical argument, Mere Christianity is a good start.

If you took my question as argumentative, it was not. I just wanted to clarify whether you believed it was a good point to make or not. I am still unclear. I understand completely how some are unwilling to debate the issue because rarely does either side change. I am fine with that.

Logged

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy

Quite difficult matters can be explained even to a slow-witted man, if only he has not already adopted a wrong opinion about them; but the simplest things cannot be made clear even to a very intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, and knows indubitably, the truth of the matter under consideration. -Leo Tolstoy